This House believes that nationalism can be a force for good

Nationalism is a sense of fellow-feeling between group members. This promotes cooperation and social cohesion within the group. Nationalism  and the identity it brings creates a social glue which binds otherwise different people together, that sense of social cooperation makes welfare, social security and medical programs much more likely and stronger. It also may make for a smoother political process when there is a solid basis for consensus. Those who are net contributors to the system need something to make them feel that what they are doing is worthwhile and in their interests; something a national identity provides as it creates a sense of belonging that transcends economic interests. In Canada for example those who strongly identify with Canada are much more likely to support redistribution and healthcare than those with low identification with Canada.[1] Societies with a healthy sense of nationalism are more likely to provide for each other and avoid the plight of poverty or poor health.

[1] Banting et al., ‘National Identity and Support for the Welfare State’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol.43, No.2, (2010), pp.349-377, (full draft text freely available) 

Far from promoting cooperation and social cohesion nationalism as much divides nations as unites them. It is no longer the case that almost everyone in a country will identify themselves the same way as there are increasing population movements. Moreover very few nations’ borders fit ethnic or linguistic boundaries. This means that nationalism’s darker side will have much more of an impact. Nationalism causes internal ethnic violence through its narrative of racial superiority. This aspect of nationalism has caused numerous genocides, including but not limited to the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the breakup of Yugoslavia. This is the inevitable result of nationalism's focus upon definition - "we" are "us" because we are not like "them" - and so encouragement to exclusion and antagonism. This applies as much to groups within the state, where "the other" is seen as both inferior and as a threat, as to other states with different ethnic and cultural traditions.

Nationalism has been a potent force for self-determination in colonial territories. The profoundly misunderstood Vietnamese independence movement, as well as most African liberation movements of the 1940s and 1950s drew heavily on the idea of nationhood to mobilise their people against a foreign exploitative power. Other examples include India, Indonesia, Guinea, and Guyana. Most often these states, once independence has been achieved, see a fracturing of nationalism that prevents those nationalist impulses from being used to condone violence against minority populations. Meanwhile in big multi-ethnic states, most notably India and Indonesia nationalism has been used positively to keep the state and its many ethnicities united my making a higher level of identity above the regional identities that in many other areas of the world would have become a national identity.[1]

[1] Jennings, Ivor, The Approach to Self-Government, Cambridge University press 2011,  p.3.

While nationalism is a force for self-determination this is not always a good thing. The utility of such nationalism depends on at what level the nationalism is created – nationalism in India can be said to unite India but Tamil nationalism is a national identity at the level below and so is a source of disunity within a country that has already gained self-determination. 

Nationalism can take many benign forms, such as that of civic nationalism, where a shared sense of national identity is created and reinforced by institutions, not ethnicity or history. The starting point of civic nationalism is not an ethnic group but the state’s territorial borders. It focuses on citizenship, civic rights and legal codes where all citizens are equal.[1] Civic nationalism has taken firmest root in the United Kingdom and the United States. This is an inclusive kind of nationalism that accepts any individual into its institutions. Nationalism can provide cultural and political glue for strong democratic institutions that can win out over forms of ethnic exclusion or political repression.

[1] Nikolas, Margareta Mary, ‘False Opposites in Nationalism: An Examination of the Dichotomy of Civic Nationalism and Ethnic Nationalism in Modern Europe’, 11 March 1999.

Nationalism is only benign in the sense that it is an improvement on local tribalism – the good is derived from the expanded size of the group for which individuals are willing to work towards the advantage of. By these standards civic nationalism is definitely a step forward and is much less divisive than any ethnically based nationalism but it does not go far enough. The natural conclusions of this reasoning is that the greatest good would come from us moving beyond nationalism and conceive of ourselves as being collective members of the human race, or further, as a part of the ecosystem of the Earth.

According to Isaiah Berlin, “The ‘physiognomies’ of cultures are unique: each presents a wonderful exfoliation of human potentialities in its own time and place and environment. We are forbidden to make judgments of comparative value, for that is measuring the incommensurable.”[1] A plurality of nations, especially in the modern era, can allow for cultural development and cultural exchange that benefits both parties. The human variety offered by national feeling makes the world a better place, through the diversity offered by the cultures that nationalism nurtures and protects.

[1] Miscevic, Nenad, "Nationalism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Diversity is not always a good thing – there are major advantages to there being less diversity if it means that we can understand each other. Better understanding does not just mean less conflict but is also beneficial to the economy as there can be more trade – something which nationalism can often block due to worries over other countries taking jobs.

Nationalism does not celebrate this diversity; cultures can be kept and celebrated without an all-consuming national identity and indeed many of these cultures are based on smaller regional, local or religious identities all of which would be much easier to preserve if they did not have to conform with a national identity.

Nationalism is a sense of fellow-feeling between group members. This promotes cooperation and social cohesion within the group. Nationalism  and the identity it brings creates a social glue which binds otherwise different people together, that sense of social cooperation makes welfare, social security and medical programs much more likely and stronger. It also may make for a smoother political process when there is a solid basis for consensus. Those who are net contributors to the system need something to make them feel that what they are doing is worthwhile and in their interests; something a national identity provides as it creates a sense of belonging that transcends economic interests. In Canada for example those who strongly identify with Canada are much more likely to support redistribution and healthcare than those with low identification with Canada.[1] Societies with a healthy sense of nationalism are more likely to provide for each other and avoid the plight of poverty or poor health.

[1] Banting et al., ‘National Identity and Support for the Welfare State’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol.43, No.2, (2010), pp.349-377, (full draft text freely available) 

Far from promoting cooperation and social cohesion nationalism as much divides nations as unites them. It is no longer the case that almost everyone in a country will identify themselves the same way as there are increasing population movements. Moreover very few nations’ borders fit ethnic or linguistic boundaries. This means that nationalism’s darker side will have much more of an impact. Nationalism causes internal ethnic violence through its narrative of racial superiority. This aspect of nationalism has caused numerous genocides, including but not limited to the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the breakup of Yugoslavia. This is the inevitable result of nationalism's focus upon definition - "we" are "us" because we are not like "them" - and so encouragement to exclusion and antagonism. This applies as much to groups within the state, where "the other" is seen as both inferior and as a threat, as to other states with different ethnic and cultural traditions.

Nationalism has been a potent force for self-determination in colonial territories. The profoundly misunderstood Vietnamese independence movement, as well as most African liberation movements of the 1940s and 1950s drew heavily on the idea of nationhood to mobilise their people against a foreign exploitative power. Other examples include India, Indonesia, Guinea, and Guyana. Most often these states, once independence has been achieved, see a fracturing of nationalism that prevents those nationalist impulses from being used to condone violence against minority populations. Meanwhile in big multi-ethnic states, most notably India and Indonesia nationalism has been used positively to keep the state and its many ethnicities united my making a higher level of identity above the regional identities that in many other areas of the world would have become a national identity.[1]

[1] Jennings, Ivor, The Approach to Self-Government, Cambridge University press 2011,  p.3.

While nationalism is a force for self-determination this is not always a good thing. The utility of such nationalism depends on at what level the nationalism is created – nationalism in India can be said to unite India but Tamil nationalism is a national identity at the level below and so is a source of disunity within a country that has already gained self-determination. 

Nationalism can take many benign forms, such as that of civic nationalism, where a shared sense of national identity is created and reinforced by institutions, not ethnicity or history. The starting point of civic nationalism is not an ethnic group but the state’s territorial borders. It focuses on citizenship, civic rights and legal codes where all citizens are equal.[1] Civic nationalism has taken firmest root in the United Kingdom and the United States. This is an inclusive kind of nationalism that accepts any individual into its institutions. Nationalism can provide cultural and political glue for strong democratic institutions that can win out over forms of ethnic exclusion or political repression.

[1] Nikolas, Margareta Mary, ‘False Opposites in Nationalism: An Examination of the Dichotomy of Civic Nationalism and Ethnic Nationalism in Modern Europe’, 11 March 1999.

Nationalism is only benign in the sense that it is an improvement on local tribalism – the good is derived from the expanded size of the group for which individuals are willing to work towards the advantage of. By these standards civic nationalism is definitely a step forward and is much less divisive than any ethnically based nationalism but it does not go far enough. The natural conclusions of this reasoning is that the greatest good would come from us moving beyond nationalism and conceive of ourselves as being collective members of the human race, or further, as a part of the ecosystem of the Earth.

According to Isaiah Berlin, “The ‘physiognomies’ of cultures are unique: each presents a wonderful exfoliation of human potentialities in its own time and place and environment. We are forbidden to make judgments of comparative value, for that is measuring the incommensurable.”[1] A plurality of nations, especially in the modern era, can allow for cultural development and cultural exchange that benefits both parties. The human variety offered by national feeling makes the world a better place, through the diversity offered by the cultures that nationalism nurtures and protects.

[1] Miscevic, Nenad, "Nationalism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Diversity is not always a good thing – there are major advantages to there being less diversity if it means that we can understand each other. Better understanding does not just mean less conflict but is also beneficial to the economy as there can be more trade – something which nationalism can often block due to worries over other countries taking jobs.

Nationalism does not celebrate this diversity; cultures can be kept and celebrated without an all-consuming national identity and indeed many of these cultures are based on smaller regional, local or religious identities all of which would be much easier to preserve if they did not have to conform with a national identity.

Nationalism is a movement of the past, linked the evils of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The future lies in an internationalist approach that stresses our common humanity, rather than emphasising those small differences that have been used by nationalists to divide us. In particular, nationalism stands against the widespread establishment of human rights, as it places absolute national sovereignty above the individual rights of all citizens. China for example rejects interference in domestic affairs subordinating human rights to the state.[1] This makes it impossible for the international community to protect properly the human rights of those living under oppression and dictatorship.

Supranational organisations such as the United Nations and European Union provide a way forward for the different peoples of the world to cooperate towards common goals of peace and prosperity, while still respecting and celebrating diversity. 

[1] Baxter, Ben, ‘The Rise of China and the Fall of Human Rights’, The Perspectivist, 12 April 2011.

Nationalism is still the most important political force in the world and has moved on from its history of conflict to being a much more neutral organising principle that holds territories together.[1] Nation states are workable political units. On one hand they are small enough that the people feel a connection to their government and can hold it accountable. On the other hand, they are large enough for those governments to be rich and powerful enough to make a difference (e.g. running a welfare state, transferring wealth from prosperous regions to economically depressed ones, having a meaningful foreign policy). It is wrong to consider nationalism to be any more detrimental to human rights than any other ideology and states with strong national identities are among the most likely to promote human rights, for example the United States. In this way, nationalism, and the nation state to which it aspires, is a force for democracy and good government. International organisations, by contrast, are undemocratic in nature and impossible to hold accountable for incompetence and corruption.

[1] Walt, Stephen M, ‘Nationalism Rules’, ForeignPolicy.com, 15 July 2011.

Nationalism empowers political movements that lead to excess, corruption and violence. Leadership regimes that are politically and economically corrupt, such as the National Salvation Front of Romania, Communist China, Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and North Korea, exploit existing senses of nationalism to disguise the fact that they mismanage and oppress their countries. Oppression can be justified as being for the country while the country’s resources are mismanaged with justifications that the resources should only be used for natives, such policies lead to land takeovers in Zimbabwe and the subsequent collapse of the economy.[1] They use nationalism as an irrational base of support for irrational policies. The people would do more to change their regimes if their minds were not clouded by emotionally-charged feelings of nationalism.

[1] BBC News, ‘Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe land seizures ‘cost $12bn’’, 3 August 2011.

This is certainly not unique to nationalism; indeed two of the regimes mentioned are communist and as often use their communist credentials for these ends as their nationalism. Similarly nationalism may sometimes result in irrational policies but other ideologies do the same, for example the failure of the communist economic system. 

Nationalism oppresses women. Inherent in nationalism is the notion of blood descent; a nation's health and security is tied to its birth rate. This leads to pro-"natalist" policies that violate the reproductive and civil rights of women. Romania is a good example of when nationalist thinking tramples the rights of women, leading to forced birthing for most Romanians and horrifying illegal sterilisations for the minority Roma population.

Some forms of Nationalism may oppress women but there is no intrinsic reason why it must do so. For a start this assumes that the only type of nationalism is ethnic nationalism, which as already noted is very different from civic nationalism.  It is also important to note that where it locks women into gender roles it also locks men into a gender role – that might be a ‘superior’ role, but that is a problem with that societies’ perception of gender roles, not with their perception of nationalism.

The creation of a national gender identity may actually benefit the position of women in the absence of the existence of a pre-existing one.[1][2]

[1] Jayawardena, Kumari ‘Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World’, Zed Books Ltd 1986.

[2] Hills and Silverman, ‘Nationalism and Feminism in Late Colonial India: The Rani of Jhansi Regiment 1943-1945’, Modern Asian Studies (1993), 27: pp 741-760